About your Search

20130224
20130224
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
, not just cutting the bloat in the pentagon budget so we don't have $500 hammers on a submarine, we're talking about saving money. my institute, the institute for policy studies, my colleague, marian pemberton has figured out we could save $200 billion just this year, not over ten years, in just the military side without doing anything that would put us at risk. >> what you have articulated is the progressive line on this which i am sympathetic to. but it is an austerian line. we're talking about raising taxes and cutting defense budget. what you're doing is diminishing the deficit and -- >> but actually the thing -- >> the military spending hurts our economy. >> in other words, this is basically -- what is so ironic about this is it kind of goes back to woodrow wilson, why are the fights so difficult or so vicious? because the stakes are so small. really in reality when you look at sequestration and we're talking about $85 billion this year, really only with $40 billion in real spending cuts, because of the way the budget operates with budget authority. you're looking at not a huge
, pentagon personnel are working to extend certain benefits to same-sex domestic partners, but is the attempt to make the military more inclusive to one group making it discrimnator tow another. the defense secretary has ordered the defense department to extend benefits to same-sex domestic partners, haymust formally declare their commitment to each other and attest that they are of the same sex, meaning these benefits will know be given to heterosexual couples who are unmarried and otherwise meet the definition of domestic partners. >> i think this does qualify as discrimination of opposite sex couple who is are unmarried and living together. >> shannon: in the 2010 report in the don't ask/don't tell, the pentagon warned of this, saying, quote, if the department of defense creates a newing categoy of unmarried, dependent only for same-sex relationship, the department would be creating a new inequity, between couples. >> this administration is using the military for social engineering. i think it's significant they they are going beyond what they said they would do at the time that don't ask/
on capitol hill and his ability to deal with all of the competing power structures inside the pentagon? >> the first impression was not positive as a result of the hearings, chris, no doubt about that. it is very imperative for the new defense secretary. chuck will be confirmed in his first public outing or two to project the sense of command, thoroughly briefed, in charge of the facts to dispel the original impression created. after that the challenge to assemble around himself a strong management team because that is a big management responsibility in the pentagon. they will be going through changes and fiscal challenges even without the sequester. the proof if the the pudding will be in the eating. how does he perform as secretary of defense. can he comes out with a better impression, not such a big teal and he can put this behind him. >> chris: one of the ways the white house is trying to clear the path for two nominees, hagel at defense and brennan at cia is they have kind of grudgingly dragged out have agreed to release some of the e-mails that chart outraged the talking points w
be pentagon comptroller robert hale taking it in stride. he said when i walk down the hall, they still wave, but with fewer fingers. and that's "hardball" for now. coming up next, "your business" with j.j. ramberg. alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser.
on pakistan. ascends drones that killed 1,000 people because pentagon officials say these people a terrorist? yes, says the american government and former u.n. ambassador john bolton says it is morally right to kill these people with drones and we are safer because of it. it does not seem morally right. take the word of some government officials that this guy is a terrorist and send a machine to kill him and to kill civilians along with him. >> well, the whole point of the war on terror from the perspective of the terrorist is to abuse the rules we have tried to create over hundreds of years to separate the combatants from innocent civilians. so the war on terror is different from traditional state to state war. the commander-in-chief authority vested by the constitution in the president gives in the direction over the were capabiliti of the united states. his efforts both in the bush and obama ainistration to go after the terrorist, i think is entirely justified both by the constitution and by our inherent right of self-defense. john: american kill anybody anywhere? >> of course not. listen
there's so many installations of military and defense workers. the pentagon noted more than 700,000 civilian military workers, department of defense workers, will effectively lose 20% of their pay. they will have to work one less day a week if this goes in effect. as one observer put it, it's like a low speed car crash heading our way. >> peter alexander from 1600. peter, thank you, sir. >>> wednesday morning the supreme court will hear arguments in a case called shelby county versus holder. it's a case that could determine the future of the landmark voting rights act of 1965. to find out what's at stake, we're going to go ahead and take a reality check on this sunday. peter bacon an msnbc contributor and editor of the grio. let's start at the beginning, if you will, for folks not following the story perhaps. what's at stake here on wednesday? >> the key thing at stake here is this is a law -- this is 1965, that lays out basically for a lot of southern states, states that had a history of discrimination, they had -- the big portion is they have to usually pre-clear any law about
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)